Is it patronising ?

Howiedoesit

Is it patronising for someone without a disability to call a person who is blind, amazing?

To be more specific someone who has won awards and trophies for ballroom dancing say the Strictly Come Dancing winner Chris McCausland was amazing.

JessieJ

I don't personally see that as patronising, as you would say that to someone non disabled if they had danced or done something really well.

Bluebell21

Hi @Howiedoesit Welcome to the Community. I hope you enjoy your time on the forum. Any questions just ask.

I do not think it is patronising for a non disabled person to say that Chris McCausland was amazing.

The judges and some of the people that voted him as the winner would not be disabled.

poppy123456

That’s isn’t patronising, may I ask why you think that?

I remember seeing him quite recently on celebrity masterchef and he was incredible!

whistles

Would he have won if he wasn't blind? I watched the final and I do feel other's eyes better, but that's just my opinion.

Howiedoesit

Yes it is patronising. If he wasn't blind, would he still be amazing?

People with disabilities are viewed as different and not equal. It's the reason newsreader called him a blind comedian. Would Clive Mirie be called a black newsreader? Would Alan Carr be called a gay comedian? No, so why are disabled defined by their disabilities?

With regards to Chris, because of his disability, he's viewed by non disabled people as amazing because he's doing something that they they can do but consider he should not be able to do. That is patronising because the non disabled commentators are taking a superior view of someone, because of his disability.If we, as disabled people are continually defined by our disabilities, then how we ever be seen as equals? If there was no reference to his disability and was praised solely on his performance, wouldn't that be better?As one disability rights put it

'Attitudinal barriers are created by individuals who can only see the impairment and not the person with a disability. People can be incredibly patronising using people with disability as ‘inspirational porn.’ Although this belief has no malicious intent, people with disabilities do not exist to make others feel good. Being condescending can cause just as much damage as being purposefully hurtful.

Howiedoesit

Yes it is patronising. If he wasn't blind, would he still be amazing?

People with disabilities are viewed as different and not equal. It's the reason newsreader called him a blind comedian. Would Clive Myrie be called a black newsreader? Would Alan Carr be called a gay comedian? No, so why are disabled defined by their disabilities?

With regards to Chris, because of his disability, he's viewed by non disabled people as amazing because he's doing something that they they can do but consider he should not be able to do. That is patronising because the non disabled commentators are taking a superior view of someone, because of his disability.If we, as disabled people are continually defined by our disabilities, then how we ever be seen as equals? If there was no reference to his disability and was praised solely on his performance, wouldn't that be better?As one disability rights activist put it

'Attitudinal barriers are created by individuals who can only see the impairment and not the person with a disability. People can be incredibly patronising using people with disability as ‘inspirational porn.’ Although this belief has no malicious intent, people with disabilities do not exist to make others feel good. Being condescending can cause just as much damage as being purposefully hurtful

Howiedoesit

On another note, l find it quite odd that people were crying after his performance.

Just why? If l was Chris I'd be embarrassed.